As Germany’s Energy Crisis Heightens, Two Brief Windless Periods Pushes Grid To The Limit!

Two brief periods of wind doldrums and Germany’s power supply reaches its limits …

German Chemical Industry Association: “It’s desperate.”

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

From November 2 to November 8 and from December 10 to December 13, Germany’s electricity supply from renewable energies collapsed as a typical winter weather situation with a lull in the wind and minimal solar irradiation led to supply shortages, high electricity imports and skyrocketing electricity prices.

At times, over 20,000 MW, more than a quarter of Germany’s electricity requirements, had to be imported. Electricity prices rose tenfold (93.6 €ct/kWh). Companies that did not have long-term contracts had to cease production. Wolfgang Große Entrup, Managing Director of the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI): “It’s desperate. Our companies and our country cannot afford fair-weather production. We urgently need power plants that can step in safely.”

The reason: The socialist/green led coalition government and the prior Merkel governments had decommissioned 19 nuclear power plants (30% of Germany’s electricity demand) and 15 coal-fired power plants were taken off the grid on April 1, 2023 alone. 4.35 billion euros of taxpayers’ money in decommissioning premiums were distributed to RWE and LEAG (East Germany). In January 2025, RWE’s Weisweiler power plant will go offline. This, of all months, will occur in January, when electricity consumption in Germany is at its highest and France may have little to supply. This is because France is the most heat-sensitive country in Europe and even small fluctuations in temperature can have an impact on electricity consumption due to the widespread use of electric heating systems. 1 degree Celsius less and consumption in France increases by 2400 megawatts!

But Germany’s misguided energy policy of switching off secure power is now also causing our neighbors to have economic difficulties. Southern Norway, southern Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands saw similarly high electricity prices as Germany did during the dark doldrums (see chart above, the figures are in €/MWh, to convert to €ct/kWh, you have to divide by 10).

Denmark, whose electricity supply is also based on wind power (56%), also exacerbated the malaise there by importing electricity from Scandinavia.

Norway’s energy minister in the center-left government, Terja Aasland, wants to cut the power cable to Denmark and renegotiate the electricity contracts with Germany. He is thus responding to the demands of the right-wing Progress Party, which has been calling for this for a long time and will probably win the next elections. According to the Progress Party, the price infection from the south must be stopped.

Swedish Energy Minister Ebba Busch was even clearer: “It is difficult for an industrial economy to rely on the benevolence of the weather gods for its prosperity.” And directly to Habeck’s green policy: “No political will is strong enough to override the laws of physics – not even Mr. Habeck’s.”

It is also often forgotten that wind turbines consume electricity when they are stationary or switched off. This is because all technical components (oil pumps, fans, control systems, etc.) must remain in operation even when they are still. Vestas specifies an electricity consumption of 55,000 kWh per year for a 4.2 MW turbine at standstill. During production times, the turbine supplies itself with electricity. But it is virtually idle 120 days a year.

If we assume an average self-consumption of 40,000 kWh per year for all German turbines, we arrive at 1.2 terawatt hours, the generation of a medium-sized gas-fired power plant To apply this to our dark, windless doldrums: to supply the wind turbines, a power plant with around 400 MW would have to run or the same output would have to be imported for days on end to prevent the wind turbines from going down.

Complete article at Klimanachrichten.

Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/8IN1UYS

December 21, 2024 at 09:30AM

Sunday

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/F1nsTi4

December 21, 2024 at 08:38AM

A Threat To National Security

By Paul Homewood

.

image

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ed_Miliband_2024.jpg

Andrew Neil has a scathing article on Ed Miliband in the Mail today.

Full story here.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/Km0W2EO

December 21, 2024 at 08:07AM

Hey Media, Remember in 2017 When an Iceberg in Antarctica Freaked You Out? Science now says: ‘Never Mind’

In July 2017, CNN and a number of other media outlets posted stories about iceberg A-68 calving off of Antarctica’s Larsen C Ice Shelf, with CNN suggesting we should be “freaked out” about it because of climate change. CNN was wrong. It was based on an incomplete understanding of iceberg formation and calving, driven by a rush to judgement to further the false climate disaster narrative.

For example, CNN’s John D. Sutter wrote in this article: That huge iceberg should freak you out. Here’s why:

This doesn’t NOT look like climate change.

There is no disagreement among climate scientists about whether humans are warming the Earth by burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. We are. And we see the consequences.

The climate chicken littles of the media blamed it on climate change then, but today, it looks like an Emily Litella moment has just occurred, as a new peer-reviewed scientific study says it wasn’t anything abnormal, nor should we worry about it. The new study published in Geophysical Research Letters tosses ice-cold water on those overhyped media claims. The study, MacKie et al. (2024), analyzed 47 years of observational satellite data from Antarctica and found that there has been no trend in annual Antarctic maximum calving size between 1976 and 2023.

The key findings of the study are:

  • There has been no detectable upwards trend in the annual maximum iceberg area in Antarctica since 1973, based on satellite measurements.
  • The break-off of Iceberg A-68 from the Larsen C Ice Shelf was not statistically notable.
  • Calving events several times larger than anything observed in the modern record could occur, and still, it would not necessarily be due to climate change.

To be clear, the calving of the A-68 iceberg was “statistically unexceptional” in the historical satellite record. Let that sink in. The authors write:

This finding suggests that extreme calving events such as the recent 2017 Larsen C iceberg, A68, are statistically unexceptional and that extreme calving events are not necessarily a consequence of climate change.

The authors also underscore that calving of ice sheets and glaciers is indicative of a healthy cycle of glacier advance and retreat, rather than signaling that a glacier or ice sheet is unstable, stating,

As such, our results reveal that extreme calving events should not automatically be interpreted as a sign of ice shelf instability, but are instead representative of the natural cycle of calving front advance and retreat.

What’s more, based on results the results of the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution model used in the study, the scientists concluded that it is statistically possible for there to be calving events several times larger than anything observed so far in the satellite dataset. For example, the authors say, “A once in a century calving event would yield an iceberg surface area approximately the size of Switzerland.”

This is backed by other historical paleoclimate data and studies such as Bentley et al., 2005 which suggest that such extreme calving events have happened previously throughout the Holocene, which the authors make note of in their discussion.

In other words, the media made a big ado about nothing.

Will this new study by MacKie et al. disproving the climate alarm noise in 2017 get a lot of press? Probably not. It doesn’t fit the sensationalistic narrative of pending climate doom promoted by the media. They’d just as soon sweep this inconvenient truth under the rug than admit they weren’t just wrong, but wildly so.

Note: A hat tip to Chris Martz on Twitter for alerting me to this new study.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/o7nDJ8E

December 21, 2024 at 08:01AM